[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: evidence: nano(1) is *NOT* better than Emacs
From: |
Emanuel Berg |
Subject: |
Re: evidence: nano(1) is *NOT* better than Emacs |
Date: |
Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:23:03 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
> Pardon my saying so, but that's ridiculous.
>
> In the case of Emacs, you rule out any changes. Then
> you make changes to Nano and claim victory.
With configuration, all bets are of. We can have a
competition - who can make Emacs look the best, and
who can make nano look the best? That'd be interesting
but the judges' call would be disputed I think even if
unanimous (which is remote).
Without configuration, as it shows in the screenshot I
posted, I think nano looks the best with respect to
the syntax highlighting.
So I'm sorry, nano ownz you. It is the 1337 stuff.
Deal with it.
And... check out:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/emacs.html
Kind of creative Emacs use especially for a guy who
rules out changes to Emacs? :)
--
underground experts united
- evidence: nano(1) is better than Emacs, Emanuel Berg, 2014/11/15
- Re: evidence: nano(1) is better than Emacs, Bob Proulx, 2014/11/16
- Re: evidence: nano(1) is better than Emacs, saint, 2014/11/17
- Re: evidence: nano(1) is better than Emacs, Yuri Khan, 2014/11/17
- Message not available
- Re: evidence: nano(1) is better than Emacs, Emanuel Berg, 2014/11/17